Cricket Opinion

2004-07-11T02:33:00.000-07:00

Hi Folk(s).

Well, I aired the 200 over idea at one of the cricket user groups, and got roundly trumped by several persuasive arguments that made me reconsider, if not abandon the idea altogether. Took up several hours of my time, and made me ruminate on why I spend so much time researching/reading/writing about/thinking about cricket. I really don't know, since my humble opinions are unlikely to change anybody's mind about anything, but I figured it was time to summarize the "Bostock View" as it pertains to the noble game, circa 2004, and try and harmonize the disparate ideas I have jotted down, sporadically, in this blog, since May of last year, and probably in doing so throw some light on myself in general. Here goes:

1) In general I dislike contrived contests in any sport. Obviously certain rules exist in all sports to assure a fair contest, but when they become arbitrary they undermine the essence of the game. By this token 3, 4, and 5 day two-innings cricket is the ultimate and best form of the game, being that it is the least contrived, there being no limits on overs, bowlers, etc., and most fluid and changeable of all cricketing formats. Its long history also is a vital link to the past, an important point that brings me to...
2) Historical continuity is very important to me. One of the reasons I love baseball is its century long stability in rules and rivalries -- ie Yankees-Red Sox -- and cricket loses that continuity at its peril, recognizing that since the advent of limited overs cricket it has already travelled some way down that path. Talking of limited overs cricket brings me to...
3) A love/hate relationship with limited overs cricket. Without its introduction (all the way back in 1961, Gillette Cup, 60 overs a side!) cricket may well have withered and died. The 40 over Sunday League was tremendous at first, until negative field placings and medium paced trundlers undermined its excitement, and led to the need for fielding restrictions, fielding circles -- in other words excessive contrivances, a tacit recognition that the format was flawed, and remains so to this day, where everyone seems to agree that overs 15-40 are simply boring in most games, for players and fans alike. Of course a way to solve that is...
4) Twenty over cricket, a brilliant innovation because, despite contrivances, it evens the contest between bat and ball. This may seem counterintuitive, since batsmen are scoring so freely, but one cannot bowl conservatively and "contain" in this game, since the batsmen are obligated to take risks and attack, thus opening up more opportunities for the bowlers. Scores are high but wickets are plentiful, a good combination for the spectators, and an indication that there is a good balance between attack and defense. Far from "undermining technique" as some critics were concerned about, it is opening up possibilities. In fact judiciously applied beligerent batting in the 50 over game has rubbed off on...
5) The longer game, bringing us somewhat full circle, where Test matches are thriving again, with less draws and faster run rates, and bigger crowds, and Twenty20 will further accelerate that trend as the years go by. So in a perfect world, if I had my druthers, cricket would look like...
6) This:
* A regionally organized County Championship of 3 day matches, allowing for lots of local derby games (incredibly important in my opinion for larger crowds, and sadly lacking now with 2 divisions), with a points system weighted heavily towards winning rather than drawing to encourage positive cricket, played 12:30 to 7:30 in two 3 hour sessions, with lights at every ground to dispense with "bad light" forever, aggressive marketing, ticketing policies to encourage the after work crowd who like Twenty20 so much to attend the 4:30-7:30 session of each day, games scheduled on the same days every week for spectator continuity.
* A season long 20 over competition on Friday nights and Saturday afternoons, with playoffs and a best of 3 final at the end of the season.
* A harmonizing of outfits between the two games, basically whites with some colored accents, names and numbers, and an orange ball that can be used during both day and night, 3 day and 1 day games.
* The Test nations would play Test Matches and 20 over games, the Test matches scheduled around the County games, so all Test players could also play in the County Championship, assuring better quality 3 day games, and more fan interest, identification, and attendance.
* A 21st century marketing and business culture in English domestic cricket, alongside the desire to preserve its traditional core values, and re enliven the County Championship, and make sure the public have access to see and enjoy the great cricket played there.

Well, it's amazing what one sits down and writes when the dog wakes you up at 3:30 and you can't get back to sleep, but the above states succinctly what it may have taken many (unread) blog entries to cover. It's a great game, and over the last 43 years, since those first tentative one-day initiatives, it has grown into a many headed monster, with two many competitions, too many one-sided ODIs, a haphazard schedule that no one can follow, a bloated organization, bloated expectations, and too many competing demands on players. The one thing that continues to improve is the cricket, especially the uncontrived, long form variety, enlivened as it has been by its short-form cousin. It's time to take stock and make sure the longer game remains cricket's central focus, so that our grandchildren can watch essentially the same game in 2050 as their great grandparents watched in 1950.

2004-07-08T04:12:00.000-07:00

Since one-day cricket, 50, 45 and now 20 overs, is so popular, and since it generates its excitement from the building pressure of having a limited number of overs to achieve a goal, why not apply the same logic to Test Matches, and make a simple change to the format, whereby in a Test Match, each team gets a total of 200 overs for their first and second innings combined? Draws would not, and should not, be eliminated, since a rearguard action is often fascinating cricket, but it would produce more results, since teams would have to declare at the end of their 200 overs. It would be interesting strategically, since a huge first innings total, scored slowly, would leave fewer overs for the second innings, and a team would have to weigh the cost/benefit analysis of that decision. On the other hand, as Twenty20 is showing, an awful lot can be done in 20 overs, when batsmen hit freely and aggressively, so a short second innings could still produce a lot of runs. I think this idea would enliven Test Cricket without upsetting its fundamental appeal.

I know Duncan Fletcher once suggested this, and its worth a second look,

And while we're about it, isn't it time to take the marketing of Test cricket into the 21st century. I'd love to see cutting-edge, well-produced ads on TV touting the pleasures of the long game -- its epic nature, the building tension, the attacking field placings, the aggressive bowling, the huge innings, the fast-scoring cameos... A new generation, perhaps being brought into the game through Twenty20, need to be pitched to, and shown the pleasures of the long game, before it is too late...

2004-06-19T08:09:00.000-07:00

Well, it's been an interesting spring so far in English cricket, with the England team surging forward, and Test cricket keeping a high profile, while at the same time advance sales for the Twenty20 are encouragingly high, and talk of other nations adopting the format, and maybe down the road an opportunity to use the new format to bring cricket back to the Olympics. You'd think, reading the press coverage, that these are competing ideologies -- the "slam bang" versus the "traditional" and the "battering game" versus the "patient game". In fact, they are both quite clearly cricket, and easily reconcilable. Test cricket has gone from strength to strength in recent seasons because of the faster scoring rates, clearly a positive effect of the one day game, and with less meandering draws the beauty of the longer game is there for all to see. There are many aspects to any sporting contest, but the closely fought, dramatic game is an essential ingredient for most spectators. A multi-day two innings match allows for a significant ebb and flow whereby each side is sometimes in the ascendancy, and also a second innings allows for the dramatic comeback. The 20 over game offers the same drama, except for totally different reasons, in that 20 overs is rarely long enough for a team to gain the upper hand so definitively that the other team is completely out of the game, as opposed to the Test match, which is long enough to allow a great innings or two to turn the game around. Thus, I would argue, both of these forms of cricket provide a high degree of drama, and therein lies their appeal.

That leaves the 50 over game, really the version of the game that has helped preserve cricket into the 21st century, and not something that should be dismissed easily, but many seem to agree that the games have become formulistic and predictable, and often one-sided. The sporting drama so important to any contest seems often to go astray during the "long short-game". I've argued for years that this could be solved by bifurcating the innings into 25 over segments, thus preserving the element of drama for a longer period in the game, and also solving the day/night lighting problem that seems to give the side batting first a bigger advantage. I have a feeling that as the 20 over game becomes more ubiquitous, that there will be calls to end the 45 and 50 over games. I think that would be wrong, but it will be an opportunity to improve and fine tune it, and I hope the powers that be have the wisdom and foresight to do that, rather than to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

2004-05-25T04:24:00.000-07:00

Well, dear reader(s), it's been over half a year since my last post, and I am reluctant to provide false hope by suggesting that this might become a regular blog again. I am, however, inspired by the cohesive and solid playing unit that is currently the England team, and their wonderful victory at Lords. What I am thinking of doing is writing a once-weekly column, perhaps on a Sunday, a "weekend update" kind of thing, that will revive this space, without too much pressure to add content too often. No high expectations, then, but we'll see where it goes.

2003-10-12T11:03:00.000-07:00

It's been a quiet month, particularly for English cricket, and in addition October is a month where I am focussed on the baseball playoffs, one of the most intense 30 days in all of sports. However, I am forced out of my blogging hiatus to bring you this article, which rightly praises Hayden's ability to accumulate 380 runs in a Test Match, but also accurately laments the predictability and one-sidedness of so much Test Cricket. This is a point well taken. As I watch the Yankees-Red Sox-Cubs-Marlins square off in the baseball Pennant race, where it is obvious that I am watching the four best teams in baseball play at their very best, I am reminded that that is exactly what Test Cricket is supposed to be, the very pinnacle of the game. Domestic cricket all over the world is sparsely attended and not-well supported. Cricket lovers look to Test cricket for the passion and intensity of the "contest" and "spectacle" that has drawn people to sporting competition since chariots raced around the Piazza Navona in ancient Rome. If we dilute Test Cricket, we are risking the future of the entire game.

2003-09-16T08:03:00.000-07:00

Encouraging story:

The day cricket outscored Songs of Praise

Jon Henderson
Sunday September 14, 2003
The Observer

As Andrew Flintoff piled on the runs, Channel 4 piled on the viewers, which, surprisingly, may have left the station's chiefs in a bit of a bind.
By tea on the fourth day of the deciding Test last Sunday, a peak audience of 3.2 million had gathered in front of their television sets.

That meant more people were watching cricket than Songs of Praise, BBC1's Sunday-evening audience banker. It also meant that, with an audience share of 23.7 per cent, Channel 4 had more than twice as many viewers as they usually do.

So why the bind? Well Channel 4 have been starting to think that cricket may not be worth the not inconsiderable amount they have paid to keep it until 2005.

But given the sort of big numbers the Test series has been doing for them this summer - an average audience share of 13 per cent is still a decent improvement on the Channel 4 average of 10 per cent - they may have to rethink.

2003-09-16T07:32:00.000-07:00

Michael Vaughan is at it again, with this ridiculous suggestion. A fifty percent reduction in county matches, with two weeks! in between each game. If you coupled this with the exponential increase in one day cricket, how long, sensible readers, do you think that multi-day county cricket would last? Two, five, ten years maximum?

2003-09-11T16:42:00.000-07:00

Well, I just noticed that this blog was 6 months old two days ago. Glad to still be posting, and thank you to those of you who bother to post comments. When I started I wasn't sure whether there'd be enough material to write about, but clearly this wonderful game boasts an inexhaustible well of topics.

2003-09-10T19:08:00.000-07:00

Well, it wouldn't be a winter tour without one incomprehensible decision -- Darren Gough's ommission from the one-day squad. Someone want to explain that one to me?

2003-09-08T18:55:00.000-07:00

Well, I'm speechless. After the Headingley debacle, one couldn't ask for a more focused and coordinated performance than England just demonstrated at the Oval. If anyone has any explanation for this dichotomy, feel free, but in the meantime I'll pretend I didn't post all those negative comments last month, and just bask in a great English victory. "And did those feet in ancient times....."

2003-09-01T06:40:00.000-07:00

It's difficult to argue with this point of view.

2003-08-30T10:10:00.000-07:00

Before we finally move on, hopefully to a more succesful Oval Test, here's a spot-on observation from the Guardian's Spin section:

THE CULTURE OF SUFFICIENCY
"For years, the Spin has tried to put its figure on just what prevents England becoming better than average, so it was grateful to Marcus Trescothick for providing a neat answer. On Friday evening, Trescothick and Mark Butcher were pummelling South Africa. The series was up for grabs and, for once, Graeme Smith's granite jaw looked more like balsa wood. But Trescothick - once touted as a future captain - persuaded Butcher to take the light, England lost momentum and with it the Test. Here was a microcosm of England's recent ills: talent spoiled by a reluctance to express it. Try explaining that one to Andrew Hall.

Trescothick's transformation from fearless young gun to jaded old pro is a sign of the times. Mike Atherton talked of a culture of fear, but there is also something of the culture of sufficiency in England's psyche. They had done enough that night, you see. No need to get carried away. Let's come back tomorrow, when the sun might be shining, and see what happens. South Africa's motto is "never satisfied". England's might be "too easily satisfied."

Before the fourth Test, some commentators had somehow convinced themselves that the series had been a close one. But the real difference between the mental well-being of the sides was exposed by the tail. South Africa's last three wickets added 333 in two innings at Headingley. England's managed 45, a deficit of 288 runs. They lost by 191.

Not for the first time, England's tail was wilfully long. Both teams went into the game with five seamers, but since two of South Africa's were Jacques Kallis and Hall, and none of England's batted in the top six, it was clear which side's selection was the more negative.

Parallels abounded in this game, and none of them favoured England. South Africa began Sunday morning on 164 for five and duly reached 365 as England's seamers suffered a collective loss of nerve. England began Monday morning on 161 for five and duly reached 209 as England's lower order etc., etc. Every time the game reached a crossroads, England stalled while South Africa zoomed past, grinning and waving.

It's not a crime to make a mistake. But it comes close to a minor felony not to admit it. In his Mail on Sunday column, Trescothick argued that he would take the light again if he found himself in the same position. Of all the depressing features of England's play at Headingley, Trescothick's stubbornness is right up there."

2003-08-27T18:20:00.000-07:00

Well, lots of negativity lately from this blog, but let's move on, shall we? Quite apart from the fact that Fletcher and Vaughan should not be further hobbling the psychological mindset of their players by allowing them to think somebody else is to blame for their miserable performance at Headingley, they do have a point, that point being that the county game does not seem to sufficiently nurture "guts", or that ability to dig deep when it is needed. We have capable bowlers (though lots of recent unfortunate injuries), certainly capable batsmen, but we often (not always) seem to lack the inner strength necessary to pull out the great performance that will win/save/sway/galvanize a Test Match.

So, how does the county game foster what CMJ calls the "breeding of mediocrity" in 4 day county cricket? Well, let's first discuss what it is not. It is not, to my mind, "too much" cricket. Back in the era of 3 day cricket, in the early 1960s, before the Sunday League, counties played 32 county games a year, or 96 days of cricket, a severe meritocracy almost rivalling that of Major League Baseball's 160 games a year (actually in terms of hours played, cricketers actually played more). In 2002 the counties played 16 4 day games, 16 one-day league games, and a handful of other games between cups, tours, and the new Twenty20, for a total that may just equal about 90 days of cricket, but the point being of course that it is fragmented and dispersed, not played towards the end of winning one ultimate prize, and with the additional problem that top county batsmen now play only half as many innings in two-innings county games than they did 40 years ago, and conversely bowlers only bowl at them half as much, in the longer game, as they did back in the day. In a word, cricketers play less competitive cricket now than they used to, and therefore it is illogical to suggest that supposed falling standards are due to too much cricket.

So, when the county championship was the only game in town, in an age with less entertainment distractions, and a shorter football season, doesn't it make sense that players developed a more competitive edge, and didn't feel like they were just going through the motions? I know two divisions, and modern coaching methods, etc. supposedly have made things more competitive, but I think the comments of players who lauded the Twenty20 for its intensity and the enjoyment they got out of it said as many negative things about the other competitions as it did positive things about the 20 over cup. Let's get one thing straight -- when played positively, two innings cricket is absolutely the best form of the game, whether its 3, 4 or 5 day, and I think most cricket watchers would agree with that.

So, in the absence of a problem with the game itself, and with the historical background mentioned above, I think the answer has to be, as argued in this blog previously, that the structure of the various competitions in English cricket is what needs fixing, rationalizing, streamlining, and generally fine-tuned with one overriding goal, that of making every game played, whether 4 or 1 day, a meaningful and interesting/exciting one for players and spectators.
I've discussed some of those ideas previously, and I won't rehash them now, but suffice it to say that any sports season needs consistency, routine, rivalries, and a fitting crescendo, otherwise all concerned simply "go through the motions", and that, dear reader, is not the path to cricketing nirvana.

2003-08-27T04:27:00.000-07:00

A spirited rebuttal to Vaughan's whingeing and whining, which is even more annoying than Fletcher's bitchin' and moanin'. Vaughan's had three matches now, scored almost no runs, totally failed to rally troops when it was necessary, and he is in no position to make such claims. And now I'm even more upset with Mr. Hussain for resigning a job for which he was obviously much better suited than Mr. Vaughan.

2003-08-25T04:05:00.000-07:00

Well, that's it then, we went down with a barely heard whimper.

Here's an article on Duncan Fletcher's excuse-making. This is no way to get fired up for the next game. The English players need a sergeant major, not a nanny.

2003-08-24T14:54:00.000-07:00

Well, it is likely that I need not worry about it happening anyway, but as we go into the last day of the Headingley Test, I am obliged to say this: England do not deserve to win this Test Match.

England gave this game away three times; first by allowing 21 for 4 wickets to become a final total of 342, second by taking the offer of bad light when the England batsmen were in full flight, and thirdly by allowing SA's 160-5 in the second innings to become a final total of 365. England allowed SA's last 5 bottom order batsmen to score a total of 420 runs in this match, on a pitch which everyone seemed to feel was deteriorating. That is, in a word, pathetic. If the advantage had been pressed on day one and the batsmen carried on hitting on day two, then England would not have been in the slump that allowed the tail to wag so horribly in the second innings, and we might have been chasing 200 and change as opposed to an almost impossible 401.

2003-08-21T03:39:00.000-07:00

Without further comment, I post this article regarding Mr. Warne's current problems

2003-08-17T18:03:00.000-07:00

DAY FIVE

Well, whatever the result is tomorrow, and of course this blog hopes that it is a decisive England win, this has been a marvellous Test match. Complaints about the pitch by Graham Smith notwithstanding, the site of two teams battling toe to toe, giving no quarter, within the context of the lyrical and often violent poetry of a five day cricket game, is unmatched in any sport. This has been a bowlers' game, and all the better for that. Almost 700 runs for the loss of a handful of wickets is all very well I suppose, but you can't beat a scrappy contest like this for drama, tension and sheer entertainment. It would be an almost impossible statistic to research, but logic would suggest that back in the days of uncovered wickets games like this were more common. Unfortunately back then more time was also lost to rain soaked pitches, but a less than perfect wicket -- in this case caused by the very high temperatures -- is a challenging and integral part of the game, as long as it is the result of nature and not bad gardening.

2003-08-09T03:52:00.000-07:00

Well, the changes for the Third Test are announced, and I suppose they strike a balance between innovation and continuity. Only our actual performance in the game will answer the question of whether the right decisions have been made, but I hope that, after being called up, Batty is not left in the pavilion while Giles again plies his less-than-succesful trade. And I am of course delighted to see Ed Smith in the lineup. He deserves his chance.

2003-08-02T18:19:00.000-07:00

This from the BBC

"In case anyone missed the hubris, England have lately been considering themselves the second-best team in the world. It is a precarious claim at the best of times, but today – as was so wretchedly the case in 1999 – it has been denounced as preposterous. England's list of lows in this match trail behind them like a piece of bog-roll on the sole of one's shoe. The least impressive of all is their surrendering of 64 extras. Their previous worst of 61 came at Trent Bridge in that dreadful summer of 1989, another season in which the opposition was criminally underestimated."

Unfortunately, absolutely true.

2003-08-02T14:59:00.000-07:00

Watching England collapse and choke is, unfortunately, not an unfamiliar sight, but it seems more agonizing this time around, after expectations had been raised by the NatWest final, and by the encouraging form of several of the newer players. I'd like to think that we're not as bad as we look, but nothing exposes weaknesses more than a five day Test match, and so far we look very weak indeed.

As I read about England's miserable fielding the last couple of days I couldn't help thinking back to the Natwest series where the likes of Solanki were rightly praised for their brilliant fielding. Since wickets win Test matches, and not necesarilly runs, perhaps we should consider fielding ability as more important than batting statistics. If Smith is caught at 50, and he doesn't make the 250 that he is on track for, the catcher has just made the equivalent of a double century for his team. It seems that athletic fielding is more prized in the one day game, when in fact its worth is more important in the Test match setting.

2003-07-30T15:11:00.000-07:00

A beautifully written summary of Hussain's captaincy and encouraging words on Vaughan's new order. Perhaps it was the right time to go, after all. Time will tell.

In the meantime, Thanks Nasser. It's particularly poignant for me that England are once again beginning to assert themselves as a team to be reckoned with, since my return to regularly following the England team, via the internet here in the US, more or less coincided with their miserable showing in the 1999 World Cup, and the general derisiveness with which they were treated during that time. Nasser was a good captain, no bones about it.

The interesting footnote to the above linked article is the fact that Nasser's resignation garnered so much press coverage, and media discussion. While the domestic game may not always excite much interest from the average Englishman, it is clear that cricket is still England's own, and very special, summer sport.

2003-07-28T15:07:00.000-07:00

Well, despite the last 40 overs drifting into a draw, this was an endlessly fascinating Test match, full of the ebb and flow that only a two innings game can provide, in spite of the fact that England never really had a chance of winning from the second morning's play on. Pollock's riveting duel with Vaughan the other morning, during which Vaughan didn't score for over an hour, is an indication of how multifacted this game can be, on the heels of the Twenty20 runfest of two weeks ago. "To every season, turn turn...." Can't say I'm too happy with Mr. Hussain. Bad decision, bad timing, bad show. Vaughan is England's most capable batsmen, and it seems totally unfair to suddenly drop the Test captaincy in his lap 3 days before the Lord's test. I hope his form can survive the extra responsibility.

2003-07-28T03:16:00.000-07:00

An interesting article about Ed Smith's current purple patch for Kent, and his ambitions for an England call-up. I am biased because I enjoyed Ed's book, Hardball, so much, but clearly he is making a good case for himself. As he rightly says, to consider 26 "too old" to be called up for England for the first time is simply an "eccentric opinion." And he likes Wagner too.

2003-07-22T16:19:00.000-07:00

Well, here we are, at the beginning of the summer's main event, the 5 Test series against South Africa. I think we are in for a cracking series. I have seen some carping in the press about how the "real" season is starting so late, yada yada yada. I for one have enjoyed the structure of this season, with all the one day events early on, building up to the Test series. I could have done without the Zimbabwe series, as I think it was kind of pointless, but the Natwest, Twenty20, and championship races have all whetted the appetite for the epic five day battles which lay ahead. I like the fact also that Test matches 1 and 2, and 3 and 4 are back to back, providing additional drama and intensity. I suppose, as often happens, the Oval Test in September could be a lame duck affair, with nothing much left to play for except pride, but I have an inkling that this one could go down to the wire. Be prepared for some great cricket.

2003-07-11T04:27:00.000-07:00

I think this concept for a new Indian domestic competition organized around corporate teams with international line-ups is a pretty good idea. Cricket the world over needs to do more to bring in the crowds for domestic cricket, and not just rely on the largesse of the international game.

2003-07-11T04:11:00.000-07:00

Here's Kent showing how the longer game could and should be played. The runs in this game were scored so swiftly that it would have fit into a 150 per side 3 day format, leaving Nottinghamshire with 100 overs to survive, instead of two full days. This is one of those games where a gritty rearguard action and a draw could be an exciting finish, as Kent, with all those runs in hand, can pile on the pressure with 5 slips, gully, short leg, et cetera, all those things you don't see in the one-day game. With Kent's 5 plus runs an over and Smith's two great centuries, and then a hanging-on action by Notts, this showcases the multi-dimensional nature of 2 innings cricket, and why it is worth saving. However, it needs the authorities to take a good hard look at the structure of the county game, to arrive at an entertaining format (3 days, 3 days, 3 days........) and not just treat it as purely a breeding ground for England batsmen. National team players are much more likely to develop in a format with more exciting games, and larger crowds, than in the current regimen of mid-week 4 day games.

2003-07-10T19:54:00.000-07:00

A nice article about Pakistani leg spinner Mushtaq Ahmed and what a great season he is having for Sussex. I recently dug out a videotape of the 1992 World Cup Final, where Mushtaq totally confounded the English top order, especially Graham Hick. It was a delight to watch. There's perhaps no greater enjoyment in cricket than watching a leg spinner perplexing good batsmen. It's nice to see that he's in the wickets again.

2003-07-06T13:18:00.000-07:00

Some mid-series advise from Michael Atherton regarding the need to bring back Graham Thorpe and use Giles in a more attacking way. Both good ideas, both of which will likely be ignored.

2003-07-03T04:07:00.000-07:00

A story about an Aboriginal tour of England in the mid 19 century. The article mentions that despite this early example of native Australian facility with the game, Aboriginal players have been almost unknown in Australian representative cricket.

"...as that pioneering team left England after its successful tour, a British newspaper reported that "not only are they great sportsmen but they are a fine body of gentlemen."

2003-07-01T18:11:00.000-07:00

Well, coincidence is an odd thing. A week ago I had not heard of Mike Marqusee, an American-born journalist and cricket writer, living in England for many years. At idontlikecricket.com I saw a review of his book, "Anyone but England, Cricket and the English Malaise", ordered it used at the excellent ABEbooks.com, and more or less read it in one sitting after receiving it in the mail yesterday. As I read his trenchant analysis of the social and political and economic history of the game, I began to wonder what he would think of the recent innovations being introduced by the ECB. Well, strange as it seems, this article appears in Wednesday's Guardian. It's an interesting viewpoint.

2003-07-01T16:26:00.000-07:00

And Henry Blofeld is certainly getting feisty in his old age. His comments about the lack of play today in the slight drizzle are well taken, and reflect a continuing disregard of the cricketing authorities to the paying public. He also steps boldly into the suggestion of a 20 or 25 over international competition. It's interesting how this is turning into a national debate, and one wonders what changes may occur over the next few years. One hopes that the committee people involved in all aspects of the game have the wisdom to see where radical change will be for the good, and where tradition should be preserved. If handled properly we should be entering a new golden age of cricket.

2003-07-01T16:17:00.000-07:00

For all the posts at this site urging radical changes in the game, and applauding those that have already been made, like the Twenty20, I have to agree with Wisden editor Tom De Lisle as regards whites(the clothing, not the race). I am amazed at the garishness of the outfits now worn in the one day game, and frankly I do not think it adds one jot to the excitement of the game. As De Lisle suggests, an orange ball would show up nicely at night, and the lovely aesthetic scene of white on green would be preserved, one of the things that makes cricket nice to look at, even when the cricket itself is getting tedious. Numbers and names are fine, and if color is thought necessary, then make it subtle, perhaps just an accent, or the shirtsleeves or something. The ironic thing is that from Packer onwards there were accusations of making the game more "American" and more "baseball-like" by adding colored clothing, but I can assure you a Major League Baseball team would be laughed off the field if they came out dressed in today's day-glo pajamas. In baseball, white with or without pinstripes, and grey for the road, are very popular, and a few teams wear a colored shirt, or undershirt, and perhaps colored socks or garters. It is very traditional looking, and has considerable continuity with the game's past. Cricket's evolution is always a balancing act between history and modernity, and the ECB and the MCC have got it wrong more often than not, but perhaps this is one area where, along with making the game more accessible, we can also preserve part of its heritage.

2003-06-26T18:31:00.000-07:00

Oh, and congrats to Zimbabwe today. They played a terrific game, and England probably took them a bit lightly. But not to worry. The whole point of a series or triangular tournament recognizes that cricket is prone to the upset or the unlikely result. Individual performances, as Flower's today, can sometimes redeem a whole team (though they bowled well too), and therefore I don't think today's result says anything particularly devastating about the new England squad. Time, patience. In the meantime, let's enjoy the spectacle that is our wonderful national summer game.

2003-06-26T18:24:00.000-07:00

Okay, these last two weeks have proven a few important things:

1. Cricket is an incredibly adaptable game. The Twenty20 was not a "slogfest" (a horrible word anyway. Sloggers get out very quickly. Clean hitters do not) but more or less a celebration of the simpler facets of any bat and ball game -- the pure joy of striking often and heartily. Grace, Jessop, Sobers, would all have had a grand time last week. There were a few one-sided affairs, but plenty of close and nail-biting games.
2. There is still a very large audience for cricket.
3. The 50 over game proved itself variable and nuanced, with four very different contests, today's England loss to Zimbabwe being one of the most fascinating. Good bowling will tie up batsmen in any form of the game. We should finally put to rest that ridiculous phrase, "hit and giggle", that the English press still sometimes uses when referring to limited overs cricket.
4. That to a cricket lover, the "cavalier" spirit exhibited these last two weeks does not dull one's appetite for the longer game. I am looking forward to following this weekend's county games, as well as the Tests. When the sort of big hitting shown by Nathan Astle last year (200 in 59 balls) in a Test match does happen, it is all the more welcome, as a complement to the more thoughtful aspects of the game, and if the Twenty20 does anything, it will show batsmen that given the right circumstances, i.e. the need to make quick runs, that sometimes audacity is the best policy, even in a 4 or 5 day game.
5. That cricket is very much alive and kicking.

2003-06-22T14:54:00.000-07:00

HENRY BLOFELD APPRECIATION DAY
Having listened to the webcast of England's second terrific win over Pakistan today, and appreciated once again the whole BBC commentary team, but especially Henry Blofeld, I also found Henry's terrific analysis of this week's exciting, and yes, infectious, cricketing events.

2003-06-21T16:04:00.000-07:00

One of the first foreign perspectives on Twenty20, from India, where they have their own domestic cricket problems. I was interested in the concept that this format may well be just the thing to try and break into the American market. Well, I am still rather bearish on the ability of any new sport to penetrate the already crowded American sports' market on anything more than a superficial level. The format does however seem to offer the opportunity for excellent TV revenues. FoxSportsWorld here carries all sorts of arcane sports, but very little cricket, beyond some highlights of old ODIs. I could see the ECB being able to sell an exciting 2 hour program that would contain 90 percent of the Twenty 20 game that was played, that would offer the ex-pat audience here, and no doubt some curious Americans, with an entertaining cricket program that didn't use up any more TV time than a rugby or Aussie Rules football game.

2003-06-21T13:30:00.000-07:00

STUPID QUOTE OF THE WEEK AWARD

Our first entry in this new category is Kepler Wessels. In reference to the South African Test tour of England, he came out with this gem,
"He said: "England haven't got a chance." "

The full text of his idiocy can be found here. A five Test match series is an awfully severe meritocracy, and flippant comments of absolute certainty about a particular outcome are never wise. We'll return to this article at the end of September.

2003-06-21T12:11:00.000-07:00

Here's the full text of a letter I recently sent to The Cricketer. Since publication is a long way from being assured!, I thought I'd post it here for all you thousands of interested readers to absorb and comment on:

"The ECB should be given great credit for the success of the Twenty20 competition. It was a visionary step, the first of many, one hopes, to raise the profile and popularity of the domestic game. A couple of years ago another step was taken, the introduction of two divisions, with the express purpose of increasing the competitiveness of the County Championship. While this format may have had some success in this regard, it has one drawback which I think is fatal, the increased rarity or virtual elimination of some traditional inter-county rivalries. When Yorkshire and Lancashire played a Twenty20 match in the new Cup -- unfortunately a one-side game -- 14,000 people showed up, but tragically this is the only time this season that these two old rivals will meet. How can we disregard such age-old epics as the Roses Match? One can look around the country and see similiar local rivalries which are being decimated by the new two division format.

So, what can be done? My suggestion would be a regional divisional format. Consider the idea of three divisions, North, Midlands/Wales, and South, as now constituted in the Twenty20. The teams play their other 5 division teams twice, and play the teams from the other divisions once. I believe this would result in 17 games per year, one more than presently, but more importantly, there would be two Roses matches, as in the earlier decades of this century, two Somerset-Gloucester games, two Middlesex-Essex games, and so on. The other advantage, and the one which would keep the competitive edge that the ECB is striving for, while playing on regional rivalries, is that there would be 4 winners; a Northern Division winner, a Midlands winner, a Southern winner, and the team with the overall best points score or winning percentage would be the winner of the County Championship. In fact, since the Twenty20 is proving so popular, the same format could be used in that competition, adding inter-division play, and providing for more games, then proceeding with semi-finals and the final as now envisioned.

Right now there are 4 happy teams (and, ergo, fans) at the end of the season, the Championship winner, and the three promotees. There are also three very disappointed teams and their fans who will be relegated. A regional scheme works better to keep everyone interested in the outcome, since a team is only competing against 5 other teams within your division to secure a regional victory, and great pride would be taken in, say, winning the Northern division, even if the regional winner was far behind the overall Championship winner. The format would also allow for late comebacks, but most importantly makes sure that several seasons do not pass without the "classic" games between old rivals that secure the biggest crowds, and helps ensure the continuation of the "institutional memory" which is so important to a thriving county game, where fans identify and root for their county team."

2003-06-21T05:13:00.000-07:00

Well, things are changing fast in the cricket world at the moment, but ICCs decision to experiment with white lines between the wickets to aid in LBW decisions is one idea that I am dubious about. Cricket started off as a sport where the advantages are mostly with the batsmen, and we have simply reinforced that advantage over the years. I would think the lines would be a great help to batsmen in judging the pitch of a ball, and therefore make it easier for batsmen. If this is in fact true I would be 100 percent against the introduction of this idea.

2003-06-20T04:50:00.000-07:00

I suppose this, what appears to be the unqualified success of the Twenty20, perhaps scares a lot of people more than its failure. There are two issues here. Obviously the format itself is a big success, but the other factor is the timing of the games. This is the area where the ECB can take the ball and run with it. If you want to attract people to regular County games, then do not hide them in the middle of the week. There have to be 4 (or, please, 3) day games played on a weekend, when people can come out and watch, and in those areas, particularly the north (although sunset, even in London, today is 9:20 pm) where sunset is late, then schedule, say, the third day of a county game from 1 to 8 for the day's play, so we can tap into the evening crowds that have come out to the Twenty20. If people see Ian Blackwell knocking the ball around in the 20 over game, and then see that he is building a century in a 4 day game, and the Friday of the game finishes at 8, some of those same crowds may come out to see the more thoughtful and less frenetic aspects of cricket, exemplified in a long innings. I'm realistic. Crowds will never be huge for County Championship games, but at least schedule them at times when people can watch if they want to, rather than scheduling them on the assumption than no one will come anyway, so why bother.

2003-06-18T14:25:00.000-07:00

Language Note
So far in this blog I have adopted the English convention of "our" endings on certain words, on the premise that I was discussing an English sport, and that I am originally from the Mother country. However, I have now tipped the balance, by a few months, of having lived more years in the US than in the UK, and I am also persuaded by Fowler's entry on the topic, of which the following is a discussion that I found posted on the Net:

Take the ‘–or/-our ‘endings of words like ‘color/colour’, ‘favor/favour’, ‘endeavor/endeavour’ for instance. Fowler’s Modern English Usage, published by the Oxford University Press, makes it quite clear that the British ‘–our’ endings have no validity; it is simply national prejudice which prevents us approaching the subject with an open mind. Fowler’s then goes on to point out that the ‘–or’ endings are much more common than the ‘–our’ ones even in UK, and that the differently spelled suffixes do not ‘serve any useful purpose’. Words like ‘horror’, ‘pallor’, ‘governor’ and even ‘pavior’ are given, some of which were once spelt with ‘–our’ endings. Fowler’s speculates that in any future spelling reform ‘reduction of ‘–our’ to ‘–or’ will be one of the least disputed items, or that, failing general reform we shall see word after word in ‘–our’ go the way of ‘governour.’

Fowler’s then refers the reader to the Oxford English Dictionary ‘–or’ entry ‘to satisfy themselves that it is right to deny any value to the ‘-our’ spelling’. There you have it: the Oxford English Dictionary itself admits the Americans are being quite correct to favor ‘-or’ in place of ‘-our’. The fact that even in quaint British spelling derivatives of ‘-our’ words are, as Fowler’s points out, usually spelt with ‘-or’ just shows what nonsense the British spelling is (e.g. ‘humorous’, ‘coloration’, ‘deodorant’.) And if you look at old English spelling you will see that Shakespeare and his contempories always spelt words like ‘labour’ what some now consider the ‘American’ way, i.e. ‘labor’.

Having never had an aversion to either American usage or slang, and relying on such an esteemed source, I will hereafter be adopting the American usage of "color", "labor", "favor", et cetera. There. Now you know.

2003-06-18T14:14:00.000-07:00

On a less happy note, these pitch invasions really have to stop, for the benefit of everyone involved, but especially the players. I would hate to see fences erected. I don't know what the answer is. Anyone out there got any ideas?

2003-06-18T13:38:00.000-07:00

None other than Michael Atherton has good things to say about the new competition. I'd be interested to know what Ian Botham thinks about it all, having rubbished the whole thing when it was first announced. His objection was that it would simply be a slogfest, and so far that does not appear to be true. In fact if one were looking for a game that balances the relative importance of batting, fielding and bowling about equally, then the 20 over game seems to be on the money.

2003-06-17T19:23:00.000-07:00

I hadn't linked to any Twenty20 (finally got the spelling right) articles yet, because I hadn't found one article which adequately made the point. This one does. I make no apologies for being unashamedly in favour of this new competition. This week more or less capacity crowds watched a dozen or so hard fought (be in no doubt that the cricketers are taking this seriously) games, taking place at an accessible time. And today a capacity crowd in Manchester watched a terrific 50 over one day international, that finished under the enveloping intimacy that floodlights bring to any sporting event. Soon England and South Africa will square off in a Test series, with some new faces for England, and if the two teams have at each other in the "spirit of the game", that is, to play to win, but to play fairly, with courage, audacity, toughness and grace, then it will indeed have been a great summer for the noble game.

Play the Game (Vita Lampada)

There's a breathless hush in the Close tonight -
Ten to make and the match to win -
A bumping pitch and a blinding light,
An hour to play and the last man in.
And it's not for the sake of a ribboned coat,
Or the selfish hope of a season's fame,
But his Captain's hand on his shoulder smote -
"Play up! Play up! and play the game!"

Henry Newbolt ( born in Bilston, Staffordshire, England)

2003-06-15T20:03:00.000-07:00

Oh, and if there are more than two and a half readers out there, and a dog or two, (well, even if there aren't, this is for you) here is a message, Happy Father's Day, and do yourself a favour one day soon, pack a lunch, wait for a sunny day, and take a loved one to a ballgame -- cricket or baseball, depending on your location. In this hectic, pell mell life that we currently lead, there is nothing more delightful than to spend a day fiercely engaging our minds and hearts in an activity which, in the grand scheme of the world, is not the least bit important, but which for that very reason is so special. At the end of the day we can walk away, saddened or heartened by our teams' performance, but knowing that life, the important stuff, mortages and jobs and such like, must go on, but tucked away in the corner of our mind is the wonderful knowledge that next week we will be back again, and our heroes will once again thrill, enthrall and appall us, and once again transport us to a place beyond ourselves, where it's always 2 outs and bottom of the ninth with bases loaded, or 200 for 9 with three balls to go and 4 to win. Take time for Paradise.

2003-06-15T19:45:00.000-07:00

Well, I'm not usually one to blow my own horn, but I have to say I'm on a roll. After a couple of posts suggesting that three day cricket should return, there was the Brian Close article (linked in the last posting) suggesting the very same thing. Today, after a previous discussion and post referring to the need to speed up Test matches, and the necessity to improve over rates, there is this in the Telegraph. One could resort to dodgy logic and suggest that the writers must have been reading this Blog, and therefore are stealing my ideas, but I suspect the solution is more prosaic, that these issues are at the very heart of the "where shall we go from here" discussion of First Class cricket. I particularly like the suggestion of Test cricket moving to two three-hour sessions. One consequence of this might be that a ground could sell tickets either for the whole day, or per session, perhaps pulling in some of those "new" cricket converts from 20Twenty who might be interested in seeing a half day session of the "real thing" with their young son or daughter. Just a thought. I'm just pleased that all these issues seem to be in the radar at the moment, and everything is not just business as usual. Don't get me wrong, I do not want to reinvent the wheel, and there is not much wrong with the actual cricket itself being played (in fact I would argue that it is better than ever) but professional sportsmen have their salaries paid by the people who come to see the game, and it is incumbent upon the powers that be that they respond to the modern marketplace, and make sure that the fans get their monies worth (much faster over rates), and that they are afforded the opportunity to see the game being played (better scheduling and innovative match times.)

2003-06-13T18:06:00.000-07:00

Initial reports from the 20Twenty seem to be positive, although we'll need a few more games to see how it all shakes out, but I have to agree with Brian Close regarding the accessibility and fan-friendly nature of three day county cricket. There is absolutely no reason, other than neglect, that we cannot return to the days of fast over rates, 120 overs in a six hour day, and a faster paced 2 innings format. Nothing would be sacrificed from the traditional format by having the players pick up the pace enough to pack in the same number of overs in a day as they did 30 years ago. A quick review of the recent Cricketer magazine revealed average over rates in recent test matches to be somewhere between 13 and 14 overs an hour. Pitiful. If you had an English season with 3 day county games, 40 over Sunday League games, and the new 20 over competition, which looks like it will be a success, based on opening day crowds, you'd have a much better prescription for a healthy English professional game.

2003-06-10T05:12:00.000-07:00

My last prospective link regarding the new 20 over competition. As the article says, this will only work if the players take it seriously, and I am banking that they will. This time next week we will have some perspectives on actual games played.

2003-06-09T05:03:00.000-07:00

A fascinating insight from Dennis Lillee regarding the development of the Packer affair.

2003-06-09T04:52:00.000-07:00

Simon Hughes can always be relied upon for an intelligent perspective, and he manages to draw comfort from England's total whitewash of Zimbabwe, despite the weakness of the competition.

2003-06-07T16:46:00.000-07:00

And I like this Independent Article, especially this:

"If you can tell me what our best team is for it, let me know. I think there will be innovations, but teams will be looking at each other to see what works. Bowlers are going to be as important as batsmen, but at the moment the coin's in the air and hasn't come down."
and this:

"Bowlers will have to come up with all sorts of variations, yorkers, new versions of reverse swing, batsmen will have to try and disrupt. I think we're all looking forward to it. Mushtaq Ahmed, who has played 143 one-day internationals, is desperate to play."

Nobody seems to know what a par score might be. Moores said that it would probably be 150, but for Surrey with Alistair Brown it might be 220. Brown, the most effective recent destroyer of moderate attacks, said he would not change his approach. "Batsmen will have to be a bit careful not to try and whack every ball, otherwise I think you could see plenty of sides being 10 for 4," he said.
Those who think this new format will simply be a "hit and giggle" slog might be in for a pleasant surprise (if they allow themselves the luxury).

2003-06-07T16:30:00.000-07:00

I know some of you traditionalists out there are unlikely to give it a fair shake, but I am actually looking forward to the new 20Twenty competition, which starts on Friday the 13th. Cricket is capable of taking many forms, but why decry a form that promises big hits, quick wickets, athletic fielding, and tight finishes? Sounds like a good 3 hours entertainment to me, and The Telegraph agrees. Those who oppose it worry about the loss of 5 Day Test skills for future England players. That, I think, is debatable, but I'd much rather see full cricket grounds, fan interest, and animated cricket discussions in local taverns, not just about the national team, but about domestic cricket as well. As the Telegraph article points out, multi-day cricket evolved originally as a foible of the monied classes. That's not to denigrate its myriad pleasures, but cricket lovers know that semi-pro League Cricket, particularly in Lancashire, has produced great one day cricket for decades, and as we move into a new century, I see no reason why we should not experiment with an even shorter, more fan-friendly version of this great game.

2003-06-05T04:47:00.000-07:00

The Australian cricket team is apparently suffering from burnout, although, as athletes, they are really far from overworked, as this article argues. However, the international nature of cricket competition, and thus the long distance travelling, does present its own psychological and physical demands. Putting aside the issue of burnout, however, I do agree with this premise, that the abundance of international cricket, especially one day, has caused it to lose its meaning. Spectators want to see exciting, close contests, between well matched sides, and they want to see a tournament or contest with some point to it. I am not sure whether the Australian proposal is a good one, the right one, or even a workable one, but it is a step in the right direction that the subject is being discussed, and proposals being made, especially by the premier international team. We will see how this plays out in the coming weeks.

2003-05-26T14:13:00.000-07:00

As if to emphasize a previous comment, today, the 26th of May, a Bank Holiday Monday, a major national day of recreation, in one of the pleasantest months of the year, at a time when the authorities are lamenting the sparse crowds for English County Cricket, and this, according to Cricinfo, is the only professional cricket being played in England:
"26 Women's Super Fours: Kings College, Taunton"

Now that's what I call bad scheduling.

2003-05-25T09:53:00.000-07:00

No cricket blogger worth his salt could possibly ignore an article about cricket in a palaeontology magazine. The article attempts to explain Stephen Jay Gould's observation that baseball batting averages have declined over time, analyzes the fact that cricket batting averages have increased over time, and conceptualizes these statistics within an evolutionary framework. Gould argued that the methodology was flawed and that no serious argument could be made that batting skills have declined since the "Golden Age" of baseball, and the writer of the article conversely argues that the increase in cricket batting averages may not signal an increase in batting skills, since so many variables have changed between WG Grace and Sachin Tendulkar. However, since, in a general sense, baseball is a pitchers' game, and cricket is a batsman's game, the statistics may well show that the pivotal skill in each sport, the one that defines the rhythm of the game, has improved over the last century.

2003-05-19T19:17:00.000-07:00

A report on the ECB's transatlantic visit to the Baltimore Orioles to learn something about how baseball is marketed and presented in America, and to find some common ground between cricket and baseball that may be beneficial to both sports.

2003-05-16T04:26:00.000-07:00

Great story about one of England's rising new stars.

2003-05-15T04:49:00.000-07:00

The Telegraph may have written this tongue in cheek, after Phil Tufnell's recent elevation to media star:

"If Tufnell wants to put something back into the game, he should also consider signing on as the face of Twenty20 Cricket, the ECB's mould-breaking new tournament. The marketeers list Twenty20's intended audience as young people, women and families - the same groups who have sat transfixed over the past fortnight as Tufnell wrestled with plastic pot plants.

There is a certain irony in the fact that Tufnell, who attended Highgate School, has turned himself into cricket's great everyman. Liberal use of the phrases "geezer" and "happy days" would seem to have accomplished that. But if the ECB want to make the most of their unlikely hero, they should put him on stage at the Twenty20 Finals day, alongside teen bands Mis-Teeq and D Side. He might even find the pop-stars asking for his autograph."

but I think it is a great idea. Cricket needs high profile media personalities as much as football needs Beckhams and basketball needs Jordans. The fact that Tufnell is a quirky character nearing 40 seems all the more appropriate to a sport with an image crisis.

2003-05-15T04:45:00.000-07:00

This, from Baggy Green, the Australian cricket site:
"The symbolism of McGrath tongue-lashing Sarwan while simultaneously wearing a black armband to mourn the death of Ernie Toshack, a member of the 1948 Invincibles, was particularly poignant. At Mumbai two years ago Michael Slater was wearing a black armband for that other Invincible, Don Bradman, when he harangued Rahul Dravid over a disputed catch. On both occasions you could almost hear the 17 members of that 1948 side, dead and alive, rising in unison. You might be the best Australian team ever, they were saying, but we were better sportsmen.

Waugh should start paying a bit of attention to dead-rubber syndrome and a lot to his team's behaviour. No Australian captain has ever been sacked for the boorish misconduct of his players. That's one piece of history Waugh won't want to make."

Nice to see that the Aussies, in general, get it, and understand that McGrath went too far the other day, and that sportsmanship should not be a dead concept. It was also good to read that McGrath himself has felt introspective since the incident, not a trait we often associate with Australians (no doubt unfairly).

2003-05-14T17:25:00.000-07:00

Debate topic of the week: This Blog believes that the standard of umpiring at the international level is woefully inadequate. This Blog believes there are two possible solutions to this serious problem;
1) That the training regimen for elite umpires be completely revamped so that decisions can be made far more consistent, accurate, and less prone to influence from aggressive cricketers. Implicit in this revamping would be increased accountability and quick demotions for umpires failing in any of these respects.
2) The wholesale use of new technologies to aid and perhaps eventually replace most umpiring decisions, so as to reduce human error as much as possible.
I'd be interested in anyone's opinions on the pros and cons of these two solutions, or on the initial premise itself.

2003-05-14T03:57:00.000-07:00

Brian Lara puts today's magnificent West Indies win in perspective. Twenty years from now will "Antigua, 2003" have the same resonance to West Indians as "Headingley, 1981" does to the English. I think it will. I was lucky enough to see 5 five minutes of highlights here on Fox (here in the US we are thankful for whatever we can get), and it was an impressive performance. Steve Waugh was gracious in defeat, but of course the Aussies won the series anyway. Let's hope this a boost to a new generation of West Indies' youth to excel at cricket, and mount a challenge to Australian supremacy.

2003-05-12T04:09:00.000-07:00

An excellent article summarizing the twists and turns of English Domestic Cricket over the years, and suggesting some improvements. In the heart of the article it says this:

"People involved with English cricket have a tendency to overlook one important fact, that being, cricket is actually a pretty good game. It really is! No doubt, the public will support it if they’re given a chance to learn how to play it while they’re young and when they’re older, to watch it when it fits in with their lives."

Never a truer word was said. To paraphrase an overrated baseball movie, "If you schedule it, they will come." A comprehensible schedule with predictable start times, maximization of weekends and bank holidays for big games, night cricket, and a return to non-cable TV coverage, will provide the opportunity to supporters to follow favourite teams and attend games. And since the game, in whatever format, is still a "pretty good" one, they will come.

2003-05-11T17:02:00.000-07:00

Since I linked to Cricinfo's "brief history" of the County Championship in the last posting, I thought I'd link to their history of the English Domestic one day competition. The competition started as the John Player League, and I have a great deal of nostalgia for its original format. I know the current arguments about the attempt to schedule some county games on the weekend, and the crowded schedule, but I saw some of the best cricket of my life on Sunday afternoons in the 70s, whether on TV (I watched every week), or at some of the local Middlesex and Essex provincial grounds. The 40 over format, with a 15 yard run up for the bowlers, and in an age when overs were bowled more quickly, ensured a terrific cricket game in not much more than 4 hours. In fact, the whole thing was "fun", especially for sports mad youngsters like myself. Although I loved watching Test matches, even I would despair sometimes at a 5 hour Boycott century, or an attritional Edrich 50. Besides, I did have a life too, and 30 hours was a lot of time to devote to a single sporting event. The Sunday League was simply one of my most enjoyable weekly pleasures; good batting, bowling, sharp fielding, and a result in an afternoon, just like my Dad's club matches. In essence, the Sunday League was the "fun" cricket that appealed to youngsters like myself, one of the purported aims of the new 20Twenty competition. Unfortunately, from all I have seen so far, I am fearful that the promoters of the new format are more concerned with gimmicks than the cricket, which should always be paramount. I hope I am wrong. From my perspective on this side of the pond, it looks like they think they are borrowing some of baseball's marketing acumen and entertainment props. True, there is a lot of extraneous stuff going on at a baseball game, but the ultimate focus is always on the game, because it is a brilliant product (I think I am enjoying baseball more this season than at any time since my move to the USA in 1980). Cricket administrators should remember that they have a brilliant product also, and the "entertainment" should not be peripheral to the game, but a part of it.

2003-05-08T15:37:00.000-07:00

I doubt any major sporting competition has been through as many changes as the English County Championship. There have been numerous points changes, and changes in the number of games played, but in terms of actual "rules of engagement", however, there have only really been three major substantive changes, in 1966 when the first innings of each team was restricted to 65 overs (presumably in line with the only one day competition in existence at the time, which started in 1963 as, amazingly, a 65 over one day competition). The second major experiment was 1974 to 1980 when the first innings was restricted to 100 overs, and if the team batting first was bowled out in less than 100 overs, the additional overs were available in the first innings of the team batting second. The third innovation was of course the change to 4 day games. The 1966 experiment lasted one year, and a brief look at the stats from that year reveal a very defensive style of play, with scoring rates in the 1.5 to 2.5 per over range, which clearly contributed to the early demise of the experiment. I am still investigating the 100 over stats, but initially it looks to have been a rather successful experiment. Obviously one of the frustrating aspects of 3, 4 and 5 day cricket is when the team batting first scores such an enormous total, using up so many overs and minutes, that the game is essentially over on the first or second day, draining much of the competitiveness out of the game. The 100 over limit somewhat addresses this. It is a topic for further research. However, one statistic jumps off the page from 1974; the fact that 125 overs were bowled in a day, essentially allowing a spectator to see as many balls in 3 days as they now see in four. Now there's a topic that should really be addressed.

2003-05-07T19:40:00.000-07:00

Seeming to deliberately contradict my previous entry about how a draw can be an exciting result, the Sri Lankans manage to make a cow's ear out of a silk purse. The sub-continent is where the big crowds, the enthusiastic youngsters, and the big cricket money is, and there is already a bias against the long form of the game in favour of one day cricket. The attitude shown by Sri Lanka, faced with an entirely reasonable run chase, is really unforgivable.

2003-05-07T05:07:00.000-07:00

A well-written article on the importance to world cricket of changing the way we choose, train, and work "elite" umpires. This is not a simple matter of using video technology, since that itself can be flawed (although its use should be increased), but in holding umpires to account for their decisions, performance and professionalism, as we do players. The ICC is already watering down the intensity and drama of international contests by scheduling too many of them, and this can only be exacerbated by miserable umpiring.

2003-05-07T05:02:00.000-07:00

Those Aussies, always striving for a new advantage....

2003-05-06T17:01:00.000-07:00

I grew up watching 3 day cricket. With considerably less Test cricket being played than at present, and with only a limited amount of one day cricket, most of the games I followed in the late 1960s and '70s were county and tour matches of the 3 day variety. I think they produced splendid cricket. A 3 day game requires a team to score quickly, take risks, and declare sportingly, in order to try and achieve a result. Is this a bad thing? I hardly think so. It certainly makes for more entertaining cricket. However, the "powers that be" a number of years ago, decreed that the decline of the English national team's fortunes must be related to the 3 day format, and its supposed inability to produce cricketers with enough concentration to build large and imposing scores. So, after an initial experiment, the County Championship went to a 4 day format, thereby sublimating any considerations of the enjoyment of the paying public for the sole purpose of breeding better batsmen for the English national team.

There is no doubt that an initial effect of the new format was to produce fewer draws. However, any true cricket lover knows that a draw can be a very exciting result, as long as at least one team is putting on pressure to try and win, whether it is bowlers trying to dig out the entrenched batsmen, or batsmen going for the winning runs. So a reduction in the number of draws is not necesarilly an indication that the cricket is any better. I have not studied the numbers, but I would also suspect that after several seasons the number of draws has gone back up, as teams simply modify their tactics to fill up the available time. What this means of course is that teams are scoring runs more slowly, or that bowling attacks are too weary to take wickets after 100 plus overs, or any number of factors, very few of them related to attacking, entertaining, successful, "winning" cricket. But of course the format was not introduced for that purpose. Its goal was to gird the loins of English batsmen for long and dogged rearguard actions, so that the dreaded English "collapse" would become a thing of the past.

But of course the ultimate irony of all this is that as a whole generation of English batsmen are learning how to plod more successfully, and build long and tedious innings, the Australians are revolutionizing Test cricket by saying, with their actions, that the secret to winning is to begin the game on the attack, and to roll forward, like the 3rd Infantry on the road to Baghdad, without any let up, attacking all the way, in the field, and at the wicket, giving no quarter, and taking the necessary risks to win the game; making big scores, but not doing it slowly, and in the process perhaps making 5 day test matches obsolete.

In this new climate it is perhaps time to consider whether, at the county level, the focussed pressure of a 3 day game is not more conducive to producing the type of Test batsmen we need, rather than the 4 day format, and its more leisurely pace, with the added bonus of once again presenting a product that is more accessible and enjoyable to the paying public.

2003-05-06T16:59:00.000-07:00

Congratulations all round to the organizers of the 2003 Philadelphia Cricket Festival. Once again the final was a splendid cricket game, this year played between the British Officers Club from Philadelphia and the Mad Dogs from Connecticut. A 25 over game of changing fortunes, tight bowling, athletic fielding, and measured hitting, that saw the Mad Dogs winning by 7 wickets with 11 balls to spare, overtaking the BOC's 131 all out. The setting was as charming as always, with the tree-lined boundary, the country church, a fine pavilion, and well-kept grass, providing one of the nicest settings for a cricket game, not just in America, but anywhere in the world. The live commentary was informative but unobtrusive, adding to the enjoyment of the 100 or so spectators. It was a pleasure to meet Malcolm Nash, former Glamorgan bowler, infamous for having bowled an over in 1969 from which Gary Sobers struck the maximum 36 runs, for the first time in a First Class game. Mr. Nash was humble and humorous in his account of that fateful over.

Final words must be reserved for the presence of Fred S. Trueman, OBE, visiting dignitary and cricketing legend. His presence lent further legitimacy to this being one of the most important cricketing events in the USA, and I was proud to have been able to exchange a few words with the great man, who was gracious, and full of that famous Yorkshire charm familiar to many Test Match Special listeners.

A great day was had by all.

2003-04-30T15:31:00.000-07:00

IF I RULED THE WORLD..:

Megalomania is not usually a failing of mine, but I could not help pondering what changes I would make if by some incredibly unlikely (all right, impossible, I admit it), bizarre, Byzantine twist of cricketing fate, I found myself, via a cricketing coup d'etat, in the position of Chairman of the England and Wales County Cricket Board. Assuming I had Czar-like power, and a perhaps unrealistic budget (hey, this *is* a fantasy), this is my vision, in no particular order, of how I’d like to see English Cricket in the 21st Century:

I would scrap the current County first and second divisions, and institute a County Divisional structure. All counties would play each other once, but their divisional standing would be determined within a four or five team regional division. At the end of regular season play the top team from each of the four divisions would play a round-robin “final” of four day games, played over two weeks, at the beginning of September, at a variety of major venues, heavily marketed (and hopefully attended), and played after all the Test matches are finished, so that these top four teams can have full access to all their Test players, and the cricket played can truly be of the highest possible level.

There are 21 weeks between the 2nd week of April and the end of August; more than enough to fit in 17 county games and seventeen 50 over games per county, and play 4 Test matches on weeks when there are no county games (thus allowing Test players to play for England and their counties regularly), and fit a 5th Test and ODIs somewhere in between (hey, no system is perfect). This leaves the first three weeks of September for the one day knockout phase, and the County Championship decider competition, with no international games, and media coverage focusing on two exciting domestic finales.

I would merge the National Cricket League and the C and G Trophy into one 50 over competition. Divisional play throughout the season would result in a “Final 8” knockout competition, played over the course of a week at the end of the season.

I would revive and jump start a variety of regional cricket festivals, coordinated with other entertainment, and other sports, based around various formats, one, two, three, four day cricket, with celebrity cricket games (remember the International Cavaliers?), fetes, fairs, and whatever can be thought of to provide a good week or weekend’s entertainment, in a good old-fashioned English way, with the object of making cricket more “visible” to the general populace.

I would insist on the installation of floodlights at all county grounds, so that “bad light” would become an anachronism, and so that day/night games could become a commonplace.

I would limit international games to 5 Test matches per summer, plus ODIs.

I would encourage greater use of technology, especially for LBW decisions, as long as it could be done without slowing down the game.

I would have the counties install the best possible, state of the art, drainage systems on all county grounds, so that outfields can dry very fast, and those interminable “after rain” delays of several hours can be abolished.

I would penalize slow over rates by restricting the length of the bowlers’ run up, not with ineffective fines. At the end of each hour, if the bowling team are not adhering to a reasonable over rate of 16 or 17 overs per hour, then the umpires would restrict the bowlers to a 15 yard run up for the next hour of play. I think this would get teams’ attentions very, very quickly. People come to watch cricket, not to watch bowlers stroll back to their interminable run ups.

I would experiment with splitting some 50 over games into two 25 over segments.(see March 10, 2003 blog posting)

I would experiment with using a line across the middle of the pitch to use as an objective guide to stop short pitched bowling and calling no balls, which would still allow genuinely quick bowlers the leeway to legally intimidate batsmen by bowling accurately short of a length.

I would experiment with some county games played to the old one-day, “win/lose/draw/declaration-at-tea format” that was the backbone of club cricket for so many years, and often produces great “long form” cricket in a shorter time.

I’d scrap the 2nd 11 competition, and link each First Class County to a Minor County, and use the Minor County as a farm team for the First Class team. Players could move up and down based on their performance. This would go hand in hand with First Class Counties streamlining their operations to employ fewer full-time professionals, and more semi-pro players.

I’d do everything I could to prevent the intrusion of so-called “innovations” such as bonus runs, hitting arcs, free hits, and 8 over innings, as in a Supermax type format. Domestic cricket can regain a lot of popularity without resort to such gimmicks. The new 20Twenty Format is as far as I think it should go.

In May, June, and July, the months with the longest days, I’d run County games from 1 to 8, with a single one hour break at 4 p.m., so people could stop by after work and see a 3 hour session of county cricket.

I'd make it illegal for all citizens not to attend one county cricket game a year; I'd establish a quota of 20 ex-cricketer MPs in the House of Commons, and replace Nelson's Column with a statue of Ian Botham -- okay, okay, the megalomania is getting out of control. Time to stop!

Coming soon: “If I ruled the ICC!”
Your comments/arguments are welcome.

2003-04-28T19:30:00.000-07:00

THE FIELD
Could you imagine this whole earth could yield
A spot more beautiful than our old cricket field?
Ring'd 'round with immemorial elms it lies a fair green lawn,
Where at the break of dawn
Grey squirrels play
And robin redbreasts herald the coming day.

The opening lines from The Field , by Francis Colgate Benson, written about cricket, and life and death, at Haverford College, America's oldest continuously extant cricket club. This coming week Haverford will be one of the teams competing in the Philadelphia Cricket Festival , the final to be held at Philadelphia Cricket Club on Sunday, May 4th. I'll be there, with some good friends, and will be posting a report on the game next week.

2003-04-28T19:13:00.000-07:00

Here's an encouraging story about record attendances at some of the opening county games of the summer. Dave Collier's comments are interesting. He refers to the holiday scheduling, the weather, the local competition, and a marquee player, Chris Cairns, all contributing to the big crowd. Bank Holiday scheduling of matches of particular interest is something that the "powers" should pay much more attention to. Competitive match-ups cannot always be guaranteed, but the two-division system has helped in that regard (although I think a regional divisional structure may work better.) Marquee players can be tough, since Test players hardly ever appear for their counties anymore, but hopefully the extra overseas players this season will draw the crowds. And lastly the weather, unfortunately the one area that cannot be controlled. But we could at least install floodlights at more county grounds so that "bad light" becomes a thing of the past, if nothing else. I have no statistics, but I wouldn't mind betting that England loses more cricket time to bad light than any other country.

2003-04-20T13:18:00.000-07:00

Sporting dynasties are a good thing. The Williams sisters, Brazil, Man Utd., the Yankees, the Chicago Bulls, the All Blacks, the Pittsburgh Steelers, Tiger Woods, and Waugh's Australians . All these teams and players have one thing in common, an extended period of total domination of their sport. And almost universally at some point they come under attack for their dominance, an attitude succinctly rebuffed in this Guardian article about the Williams sisters last year. There have been many great Australian teams, but it is clear to me that the current Aussie team are indeed changing the nature of the game, because they are the first true dynasty that has come into being after the advent of limited overs cricket. They have applied the attacking tactics of the one day game to Test cricket, and in doing so are revolutionizing 5 day cricket. Draws are rare, 4 runs an over is common, the game is almost over by the 4th day. Such dynasties, while painful to the losing teams, are good for sport because they force other teams to raise their standards accordingly. One must improve to compete. I am looking forward very much to a 5 Test series between Australia and another nation who are their equal in every department. I just hope it is England.
Happy Easter

2003-04-19T18:25:00.000-07:00

This quote from an on-line sports page: "The 20Twenty competition will be a 20-over thrash, half the length of the previous shortest match between counties, played in the evenings to attract the type of customer who lacks the time or patience to watch for an entire day." is rather typical of the cricket media's attitude towards the new 20 over evening midsummer tournament. The wording is reminiscent of the BBC's pro-Iraq war coverage, which someone slyly described as "nuanced objectivity". It is largely a statement of fact, but dripping with condescension. Now, as I have written earlier in this blog, I regard Test cricket, at its best, as the pinnacle of this great game, but enjoyment of the "long form" is not mutually exclusive of enjoyment of the shorter versions of the game. 60, 50, 40 and 20 over games are still cricket, just faster versions. There are undoubted losses in strategy and subtelty, but those losses are often made up for in intensity and excitement. Thousands of club and school cricketers play in 20 over evening leagues all over England. I am sure some of these journeymen (and women) players who keep the grassroots game alive will be the "type of customer" to enjoy the new competition, wondering how they might fare against these top flight players. I'll reserve decision on the new format, and get first hand reports from English friends who pay good money at the door, rather than from jaundiced journalists looking for an axe to grind, or a stump to pummel.

2003-04-19T17:50:00.000-07:00

Continuing the overseas player debate, this Guardian article expands on one of my earlier postings (more eloquently than I did), and points out that the idea that "foreigners" are somehow taking away jobs from English cricketers is a fiction, and also underlines that playing regularly against the very best players, whatever their nationality, is the best breeding ground for international cricketers and for improving the England team.

2003-04-18T20:03:00.000-07:00

Returning to cricket, this Cricinfo preview of the season makes a very valid point that having overseas players on a county team nowadays is not the same as it was in the 70s, when schedules were not so crowded, and the likes of Clive Lloyd, Viv Richards, Malcolm Marshall, and their ilk, could thrill the county crowds. Now international players, whether English or otherwise, rarely play for their county teams. Without being able to provide a good solution to this, other than cutting ODIs and Tests in half (an unlikely scenario), I think this is a great shame. I have no answer to this conundrum, but I do know that cricket is too great a game, and too much a part of an English summer, for the county game to descend into nothing more than a glorified farm system for the international side. County cricket should be vibrant and enjoyable on its own terms, and for its own sake.

2003-04-18T18:05:00.000-07:00

Okay, it's my blog, so I suppose I can do whatever I want, right!? Thought I'd take a little break from cricket and answer this week's Friday Five questions. So here goes:
1. What was the first band you saw in concert? That would be Pink Floyd, back in, I believe, 1971, at London's Rainbow Theatre. Queued up all night, literally dusk to dawn, the week before, to secure tickets, with three good friends, and then went to the show the following week. Musically the show was outstanding but somewhat "static". The Floyd were the original "shoegazers", and the show was the premier performance of Dark Side of the Moon, in an expanded version, so the music was largely unfamiliar. However, there were some transcendent instrumental passages, buoyed by the quadraphonic sound, that have stayed with me till this day, and provides a nostalgia trip everytime I hear Floyd on the radio. The concert was somewhat tarnished by the trip on the train up to London, where the 4 of us 15 year olds ended up being stuck in a train compartment for two stops with two convicts out on a weekend pass, who decided to make our lives miserable for half an hour, and scare the stuffing out of us.
2. My current favourite artist is Rufus Wainwright, whose piano-based pop knocks the socks of anything else currently out there. Rufus is the son of Loudon Wainwright III, brilliant folk satirist, and Kate McGarrigle, one half of the fantastic Canadian McGarrigle sisters, so his musical gene pool runs deep. His songs are tuneful in a complex way unfamiliar to most pop audiences nowadays, his arrangements worthy of late era Beach Boys and Beatles, his lyrics deep and thoughtful, his voice an instrument of unique, if somewhat nasal, eloquence, and his influences enormously diverse, from Edith Piaf, Schubert lieder, Harry Nillson, John Lennon, Randy Newman, and Brian Wilson.
3. What is your favourite song? I can't pin it down to one tune or song, but the shortlist would include Like a Rolling Stone by Dylan, Strawberry Fields by the Beatles, My Generation by The Who, London Calling by The Clash, Unchained Melody by The Righteous Brothers, Cold Cold Heart by Hank Williams, Jumping at the Woodside by Count Basie, Satisfaction by The Rolling Stones, I Heard it in Monterey by Sinatra, Rodrigo's Guitar Concerto, The Thieving Magpie overture, the second movement of Beethoven's 9th, the hymn How Great Thou Art, and God Only Knows by The Beach Boys.
4. If you could play any instrument, what would it be? Well, I have owned a guitar for almost 30 years and never got much beyond a basic strum and 20 basic chords, so rather than delving into something totally knew, I'd love to be able to improvise a guitar line with the fluidity of a Carlos Santana, a Clapton, or a Wes Montgomery.
5. If you could meet any musical icon of the past or present, who would it be and why? The recorded output of the great Robert Johnson, Delta blues artist extraordinaire, is somewhat frustrating, albeit magnificent, since it concentrates only on blues and not on the diverse showtunes, breakdowns, dance tunes and novelty numbers that Johnson would have played for audiences in and around Clarksdale, Mississippi. So I'd like to be transported back to the mid 1930s, and see Robert hypnotize audiences at a Saturday night juke joint somewhere in the Delta with a dazzling variety of styles. Perhaps Muddy and Howlin' Wolf and Son House would be there too. We's sit and watch, and wonder whether Johnson's "Me and the Devil Blues" was more autobiographical than he was letting on.

2003-04-17T20:19:00.000-07:00

Well, the new English domestic season opens tomorrow -- oddly on Good Friday, a day rather solemn to a lot of folks, including myself -- and it will be interesting to see what transpires. This time last year Wisden and others were suggesting drastic changes to the English County scene, including city teams, or regional teams, or *something* other than what we had, and predicting the death of the long-form game in the near future. Well, as Twain said, "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated", although that's not to say that there is much that could be improved about the County game, and that will be a subject of future postings. Attendances were up by a healthy amount last year, and the English Championship is possibly the most well-attended domestic competition in the world. I am always puzzled by the depth of talent in Australia, and the apparent indifference of the paying public to watching any of it except at the international level. I suspect that the nostalgic English attachment to cricket as a pastime/game, an activity worthy of interest in its own right, often regardless of the result, may be at odds with the more Australian view of cricket as commercial activity/sport. The latter might produce the most efficient and unbeatable cricket team, the former might account for England's tendency to be also-rans; the upside, however, is that a healthy amount of people still pack a lunch, call a friend, and head on down to the County ground for a few hours of the unique pleasure that can only be afforded by 22 fellows in white, a red ball, a green field, a pint of ale, good company, and an English summer's day. It is this bucolic ideal that John Paul Getty, son of an American oil baron, fell in love with. He passed away yesterday, aged 70, in his adopted country, a generous patron of British culture, of which cricket forms so intimate a part.

2003-04-08T20:00:00.000-07:00

All right, why should I really care about this so soon after the World Cup? And do the good citizens of Pakistan or Kenya really care either? I'd be happy if someone would let me know if they do, because after a 6 week plus international tournament, it is hard to find any good justification for the playing of the Sharjah Cup. However, at the risk of adding even more cricket to a crowded calendar, here's an idea worth considering. It was pointed out recently by the manager of Manchester United that the football played in the European Champion's Cup, a club competition, is more exciting, appealing, and just plain better than the World Cup, partly because the teams are such cohesive units, and because they have players from all over the world. Now, football is more of a team game than cricket, and the international cricket teams spend more time together than the football teams, but wouldn't it be interesting to see the winners of the English County Championship, the Sheffield Shield, and the WI, NZ, Pakistan and Indian domestic competitions playing one another? I know of no precedent for this, and no doubt I will be shot down in flames (if there is anyone out there manning the anti aircraft guns) because it would be too unwieldy, not interesting, or whatever, but personally I could use something a little different than the endless array of the same teams playing the same teams playing the same teams.

2003-03-28T19:21:00.000-08:00

Well, while Warne gets paid for not playing (see previous post), the Pakistanis get docked for not going far enough in the tournament. I hope the Kenyans will be getting paid double for going twice as far as predicted.

2003-03-26T18:33:00.000-08:00

Nice work if you can get it....

2003-03-22T14:10:00.000-08:00

Racism on the cricket field is, unfortunately, alive and well in 2003. Darren Lehmann, the Australian batsman, back in January referred to the Sri Lankans as black c***ts when he entered his dressing room, and Martin Crowe suggested that Maoris don't have the psychological fortitude to play a whole day of cricket. Perhaps Crowe's "instant" Supermax Cricket was designed with Maoris in mind.....

Lehman's vitriolic outburst is disgusting to any decent person, notwithstanding the unfortunate attempts by the Australian authorities to make light of it. To claim that it was somehow excusable because it was uttered in the heat of the moment is no argument at all. Most mature, reasonable people, when faced with a frustrating situation, will get angry at themselves, the situation, the weather, perhaps the institution that they perceive as the cause -- "bloody bureaucrats", "scheming lawyers", "damn fast bowlers" -- but if their "excited utterance" (a legal term recognizing the fact that comments made under stress often mirror a person's true feelings) is, as Lehrmann's, a revolting racial epithet, then I think we can conclude that the person has some serious issues. Rather than being excusable because it is said in the "heat of the moment", it is of more concern because it was the first thing that came into the person's mind.

Martin Crowe's comment, while more subtle, is no less insidious. Condescension as an excuse for exclusion has a long history in sport. The "noble savage", physically gifted but mentally flawed, is a racist conceit with an ignoble but pervasive history, and Martin Crowe is just another link in that chain.

It is interesting that cricket, because of the long involvement of the sub continent teams, and of the West Indies, is a far more integrated sport than most. England were hosting tours by Indian and Caribbean teams long before Jackie Robinson broke the colour bar in American baseball. With the increasing volume of international cricket, players are constantly exposed to other cultures, attitudes, and skin colour. Given that, it is sad and perhaps surprising when racist stereotypes, and racist rage persist. It makes it all the more poignant to see the recent photograph of the Zimbabweans Flower and Olonga at the crease together, a black man and a white man united as cricketers, as friends, and as men of conscience. Lehmann and Crowe should take note.

2003-03-20T05:36:00.000-08:00

More interesting subjects on the way. Temporary lapse in posting while home computer network is upgraded. Say a prayer for our brave men and women out there fighting for freedom; freedom from terror and freedom from tyranny.

2003-03-16T04:52:00.000-08:00

The ICC have big plans for cricket in the USA in 2007. Matt Engel of the Guardian is sceptical that this can succeed. I tend to agree with Engel that cricket, while a popular pastime among the immigrant community, will never become a major -- or even minor -- sport in the USA. But I'd be happy to be convinced otherwise!